IN RE: LIA.W. and Lii.W. (Minor Children) (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Two months after L.W. (Mother) and her two sons, Lia.W. and Lii.W. (collectively, Children), moved to Indiana, each child had accumulated 10 or more unexcused absences from school. The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) was notified and soon learned that Mother had two open cases of educational neglect in other states. Further investigation revealed concerns about the family's housing instability as well as Mother's mental health and substance use. Following a petition by DCS, the trial court determined that Children were children in need of services (CHINS). Finding no clear error in this determination, we affirm.¹

Facts

[2] Mother and Children moved from Washington, D.C. to Terre Haute, Indiana, in early March 2025. Mother enrolled Children in school, but within two months, Lia.W. accumulated 10 unexcused absences and Lii.W. accumulated 23 unexcused absences. This was in addition to numerous excused absences, each due to various illnesses. Both Children were failing most of their classes. As a result, DCS received two reports of educational neglect: one on April 24 and another on April 30.

[3] To investigate these reports, DCS Family Case Manager (FCM) Jordan Schriver went to Children's school and reviewed their attendance records. She confirmed Children's absences and learned that school officials had attempted to contact Mother “numerous” times without success. Tr. Vol. II, p. 43. While FCM Schriver was at the school, a school official called Mother again, but the phone line was disconnected.

[4] FCM Schriver then discovered that Children had recently been involved with the child services agency in Washington, D.C. That agency opened an assessment for educational neglect in January 2025—two months before Mother and Children moved to Indiana—but had been unable to locate Mother. School records from Washington, D.C. showed that Lia.W. had 56 unexcused absences and Lii.W. had 55 unexcused absences. FCM Schriver also discovered that Mother had two active warrants out of Florida for neglect of a dependent, also related to Children not attending school.

[5] FCM Schriver eventually made telephone contact with Mother, identifying herself as a DCS employee and explaining that she was calling about a report. Mother immediately responded: “If this is regarding the kids missing school, they have been sick.” Id. at 45. When FCM Schriver explained that she needed to meet with Mother to discuss the report, Mother told FCM Schriver “to get a warrant” and then hung up the phone. Id.

[6] The next day, May 1, 2025, DCS attempted to contact Mother in person. By this time, Mother and Children were living in a hotel. They had recently left a domestic violence shelter after Mother refused to engage in the shelter's services. When a DCS employee arrived at the hotel, Mother was again uncooperative and hostile. She began filming the employee and called him a “corrupt government worker.” Id. Mother then fled on foot with Children.

[7] Another DCS employee, FCM Kierra Dandridge, soon located Mother walking down the street with Lia.W. Mother continued walking, despite the FCM's attempts to talk with her. When Mother eventually stopped, FCM Dandridge observed “a strong odor of marijuana coming from [Mother].” Id. at 47. Mother told FCM Dandridge that “she had bus tickets and that her plan was to get up out of here.” Id. at 46. Mother stated that the tickets were to Indianapolis but later pointed to a bus bound for St. Louis and identified it as the one she would be taking. When DCS could not verify where Mother and Children would stay that night, DCS contacted a service provider who paid for a few nights at the hotel.

[8] Throughout her conversations with FCM Dandridge, Mother made numerous concerning statements. Mother claimed that she was being stalked by people in the government and that she was working with the FBI, but she refused to provide further details. FCM Dandridge asked if Mother had any mental health issues, and Mother said she did not. She refused to provide the FCM information on her current medications or on Children's fathers. When FCM Dandridge asked if she would be willing to engage in services, Mother responded that she “didn't need services, just a couple hundred ․ dollar gift cards to TJ Maxx.” Id. at 48.

[9] FCM Dandridge then spoke to Children. They “expressed concerns of [M]other purchasing drugs in front of them” from an unknown individual at a gas station. Id. at 49. One child described the drugs as a “green leafy substance.” Id. FCM Dandridge then created a safety plan with 12-year-old Lii.W., who agreed to call DCS if he had concerns about Mother trying to flee the state or if the family did not have a place to stay.

[10] On May 7, DCS received a call from Lii.W., who reported that the family was leaving for Massachusetts in 10-30 minutes. When DCS arrived at the hotel, all of the family's belongings had been packed in suitcases. DCS removed Children from Mother's care, placing Lii.W. with his father in Washington, D.C. and Lia.W. in foster care in Indianapolis. Soon after, DCS filed petitions alleging Children were CHINS, citing concerns about the family's housing instability, Mother's mental health and substance abuse, and Children's significant school absences.

[11] At a fact-finding hearing on the CHINS petitions, DCS recounted Children's unexcused school absences—23 for Lii.W. and 10 for Lia.W.—and Children's failing grades. Lii.W. could not perform “simple addition and subtraction.” Id. at 65. DCS also explained Mother's lack of cooperation with DCS, refusing to disclose “anything about her life” including information about Children's fathers, her employment, or her housing. Id. at 64. Mother also refused to engage in services, aside from a couple of visits with Lia.W. After missing several scheduled visits, Mother did visit with Lia.W. but engaged in inappropriate conversation relating to the status of the case that “shocked” the service provider. Id. at 63.

[12] DCS employees also expressed concerns about Mother's mental health and drug use. They recounted the instance of Mother smelling strongly of marijuana and Lii.W.’s disclosure that Mother purchased “a green leafy substance” from an unknown individual at a gas station in front of Children. Id. at 50. A DCS employee testified that she observed Mother's “flight of emotions” and inability to “stay on one topic at a time” in conversation. Id. at 61. The employee was concerned by Mother's accusations that DCS was “conspiring with the federal government” and her claims that she works with the FBI. Id.

[13] Finally, Mother testified and denied having knowledge of Children's unexcused absences. She admitted that she had not participated in services recommended by DCS—aside from a few supervised visits with Lia.W.—“because [she] was not Court ordered” and because she did not believe she needed them. Id. at 26. Mother also explained that she moved to Indiana because she was the target of stalking and harassment by some unspecified organization. She described having a “heavy intrusion on [her] phone” and on Children's phones that “drain[s] your data” and “can tell about your whereabouts.” Id. at 15.

[14] Following the fact-finding hearing, the trial court determined that Children were CHINS. The court “[did] not find Mother's testimony credible in regards to the reasons for [Children] missing extensive amounts of school” and described Mother's testimony as “often rambling and difficult to understand.” App. Vol. II, p. 56. It found “the demeanor of Mother's testimony could be explained by mental health or substance use issues.” Id. at 56-57. The court concluded that each child's “physical and mental conditions are impaired by Mother failing to supply adequate supervision, a home free from substance use and mental health issues, adequate housing or adequate education.” Id. at pp. 57, 142. The court then entered a dispositional order requiring Mother to engage in services, including a substance use assessment, psychological evaluation, and home-based counseling.

Discussion and Decision

[15] On appeal, Mother argues that DCS failed to present sufficient evidence to establish Children were CHINS. When reviewing a CHINS adjudication for sufficient evidence, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's decision without reweighing the evidence or judging witness credibility. In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1286-87 (Ind. 2014). We give “deference to trial courts in family law matters” because of their “unique ability to see the witnesses, observe their demeanor, and scrutinize their testimony, as opposed to this court's only being able to review a cold transcript of the record.” In re A.M., 121 N.E.3d 556, 561-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[16] Where, as here, the trial court supplements its determination with findings and conclusions, “we consider whether the evidence supports the findings and whether those findings support the judgment.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287. We accept unchallenged findings as true. Matter of W.H., 254 N.E.3d 549, 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “[W]e review issues not covered by the findings under the general judgment standard, meaning we will affirm the court's decision if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287.

[17] DCS alleged Children were CHINS under Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1. This requires DCS to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(1) the children are seriously endangered as a result of the parent's inability, refusal, or neglect to supply necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision;

(2) the children's needs for care or treatment are unmet; and

(3) those needs are unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.

See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287; Ind. Code § 31-34-12-3 (burden of proof).

[18] Mother argues that DCS failed to prove the first element—that her actions seriously endangered Children. Specifically, she claims she did not knowingly fail to ensure Children attended school and challenges the trial court's factual finding that “[s]chool officials attempted to communicate with Mother several times to address the unexcused absences but were unsuccessful.” App. Vol. II, p. 55. Mother claims the record reveals only that the school called Mother but did not specify the purpose of the calls. Because the school's calls theoretically could have been about other matters, and because the school did not successfully reach her, Mother claims she did not know about the absences. This argument is unpersuasive for multiple reasons.

[19] First, the school's intent to notify Mother about Children's absences could be reasonably inferred from the evidence. See In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1286-87 (explaining that reviewing courts consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting trial court's decision without reweighing evidence). For instance, one call occurred while a DCS employee was in the school office, which supports the inference that the call was related to DCS's investigation into Children's absences. Therefore, the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support the court's finding.

[20] Additionally, other evidence supports the determination that Mother was unable to, refused to, or neglected to ensure Children received adequate education.² Mother does not challenge the court's finding that when DCS confronted her about the report of educational neglect, she did not cooperate but instead “attempted to run and evade contact.” App. Vol. II, p. 56. Nor does she dispute the findings that Children have a history of attendance issues in two other states and that Mother came to Indiana to “evade[ ]” investigations into those absences. Id. at 55.

[21] Finally, Mother's argument fails to recognize that educational neglect was not the only basis for the CHINS determination. The court concluded that Children's “physical and mental conditions are impaired by Mother failing to supply adequate supervision, a home free from substance use and mental health issues, adequate housing or adequate education.” Id. at 57. Mother does not challenge any of the trial court's findings as to her substance use, her mental health, and her lack of stable housing. The court found that “these issues have resulted in a negative effect for [Children] in that they are unable to have a stable place to live and attend school on a consistent basis.” Id.

[22] By the time of the fact-finding hearing, the conditions prompting DCS's concerns had not improved. See In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574, 580 (Ind. 2017) (“[C]ourts should consider the family's condition not just when the case was filed, but also when it is heard.”).³ Mother refused services offered by DCS and engaged only sporadically in visitation with Lia.W. Instead of cooperating with DCS, Mother was hostile, fled from employees, and refused to provide DCS information.

[23] Given the foregoing, sufficient evidence supports the CHINS determinations. Because Mother has failed to demonstrate clear error, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Lia.W.’s father admitted to the CHINS allegations and does not participate in this appeal. Lii.W.’s father is not identified in the record.

2.   Mother's argument essentially reads the term “knowingly” into the CHINS statute, without explanation. Indiana Code § 31-34-1-1 requires only that children are seriously endangered “as a result of the parent's inability, refusal, or neglect.” This is because a CHINS adjudication “focuses on the needs and conditions of the child” and is not meant “to punish the parent.” Matter of W.H., 254 N.E.3d at 554. While there may be “a certain implication of parental fault in many CHINS adjudications, the truth of the matter is that a CHINS adjudication is simply that—a determination that a child is in need of services.” Id. (citation omitted).

3.   Though Mother testified at the factfinding hearing that she had obtained stable housing, DCS explained that this was new information. FCM Rohrkaste stated: “[Mother] has refused to give me the address. The first time I heard it was here.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 67. FCM Rohrkaste added that she was “absolutely” willing to “check out [Mother's] new housing” and employment once a release is signed. Id. at 69-70.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.